A standard lawyer-client relationship begins with an agreement between a lawyer and a client whereby the lawyer will take over the legal representation of the client`s case under an agreed fee agreement. In a typical unconditional fee assignment, a lawyer is hired through a mandate contract, under which the client agrees in advance to pay the lawyer what is commonly referred to as the mandate fee. The reality is that the term “retain” has different meanings, and the term “mandate fees” can also have different meanings, which can lead to significant misdeeds for a lawyer if he does not fully understand the ethical rules around him. Lais included a fee agreement that stated: “The client agrees to pay the lawyer a fixed, non-refundable advance fee of $2,750 for his services and $275 per hour after the first 10 hours of work. This fixed and non-refundable advance is paid to the lawyer to ensure his availability in this matter. The State Bar Review Court found that the $2,750 was intended to cover the lawyer`s first 10 hours of work, which was confirmed by the client`s testimony that she understood it as such, and the lawyer`s invoices showing the $2,750 as a credit for the services to be provided. Since the fee agreement did not specify a period for which the lawyer was to be available to the client, nor did the evidence show that the lawyer had actually reserved a certain period of time, its wording of “availability” did not change the prepayment charges to “actual” prepayment charges. Lais, loc. cit., 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 987; WL 391171 1998.

I think you have to explain very clearly if the customer is charged for things like copying, traveling, emails, texts, things like that. The mandate agreement states that you can be charged tenths of an hour for phone calls, but some people think it`s the open season when you send yourself a text message. In its application, based on the wording of the 2005 agreement, the City argued that this was a current customer entitled to automatic disqualification, citing California Rule of Ethics 3-310 and Flatt v. Sup. Crt. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 284. The Court of First Instance granted the application. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court in a written proceeding, finding that none of the language in the 2005 agreements was “reasonably vulnerable” to the interpretation that the City was a current customer of the company. The phrase “as requested” and “confirm” has made agreements “framework” mandate agreements – agreements that only facilitate and provide a structure to establish future lawyer-client relationships as desired and are subject to acceptance, based on considerations such as conflict reviews, workload and workflows. Id. at 913. The mere fact that the company did not formally terminate the 2005 agreements did not alter the outcome.

Citation Worthington v. Rusconi (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1488, 1498, the court noted that termination does not depend on a client`s formal withdrawal or subjective beliefs – but “on evidence of an ongoing mutual relationship and activities to promote the relationship.” The correct identification of the type of mandate has ethical implications that go beyond whether you can withhold the fees, and also invokes conflict rules. California`s 3-310(C) Rule of Professional Conduct states: Thus, the question of when a “royalty” is earned creates the distinction between the different forms of “mandate fees” as mentioned in modern practice. This distinction is crucial because different rules apply to each type of royalty. “The affiliate whose employment relationship has ended must. (2) Immediately reimburse any portion of a prepaid royalty that has not been earned. This provision shall not apply to an actual retention fee paid solely for the purpose of ensuring the Member`s availability in this regard. A lawyer hired under a “real” advance has a current client in progress – the client pays the advance and reserves the lawyer`s services for the period specified in the fee agreement.

This client must be correctly categorised as a current client for conflict purposes. Under California law, one rule applies: a lawyer is not allowed to keep an undeserved fee. California`s Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(D)(2) states that the State Bar Committee on Compulsory Fee Arbitration (“CMFA”) has developed Model Fee Agreements (“SFAs”) to assist attorneys in developing their own agreements. The forms are posted on the state bar website and cover (1) disputes on an hourly basis, (2) non-legally binding matters on an hourly basis, and (3) emergency matters. The Committee has also developed (4) instructions and (5) optional clauses and disclosure forms that may be useful for lawyers representing clients. These forms are not binding on the California State Bar, the Board of Directors, or any person or court with regulatory duties, or a member of the California State Bar. .